Proposed Updates to ONAP Model Governance

Objective: To establish a ‘reasonably light’, efficient, well communicated, repeatable and traceable model approval process.

1. Model States：

DISCUSSION – This state means the model is proposed to be reviewed and discussed in the modeling subcommittee. The proposed model shall be captured in one (or multiple) wiki pages under the 'discussion' category of the modeling workspace. These pages (contributions) will get reviewed in weekly meetings.  The contributor also must provide use cases, requirements and relevant material articulating why the model is required when first discussed in the weekly call.

CLEAN – This state means the model proposal has been officially reviewed and approved by modeling subcommittee. The model wiki page will be moved under the 'clean' category of the modeling workspace, and be referenced in the ONAP modeling specifications.

2. State Transitions

Proposal => DISCUSSION

• The model proposer shall create modeling requirements in the 'High Level Requirements' page, and create corresponding JIRAs. The requirements and JIRAs will be reviewed and need to be agreed by the team.
• The model proposer shall create the wiki page (contribution) under the 'discussion' category of the modeling workspace
• After the first presentation in the modeling subcommittee call, the model proposer MUST also “call for an official review” of the page (contribution) via an email to: 
• Reviews & Comments：
  • The proposal shall be presented and discussed in the weekly modeling subcommittee call.
  • Comments should be captured directly on the wiki page (either at the bottom or preferably “in line”), or by emails to the modeling subcommittee's mailing list.   
  • Responses must be made to EACH comment with heading:
    • <AGREE> agree with the comment and provide description of action,
    • <DISCUSS> no action will be taken until discussed by the team,
    • <INFORMATION> additional information provided,
    • <DEFER> no action until some later time.
  • Review decisions are captured on the wiki, and in meeting minutes.

DISCUSSION => CLEAN

• In order to transition to clean, the following occurs:

• • There is general consensus within the modeling team for the proposal. General consensus includes:
    • All WIKI comments addressed (nothing left in discussion).
    • Call for team agreement in meeting for the email poll, and captured in meeting minutes.
  • The Modeling Chair does a “call for approval” of the wiki discussion page to onap-modelingsub@lists.onap.org, providing a 2-week time period for approval of the page. People respond “Yes”, "No" (with reasons) or “Abstain” (may with reasons).
  • In the following modeling subcommittee call after the end of the email poll, the Modeling Chair will address rough consensus of the poll:
    • If there's no objection received in the email poll and the modeling call, the contribution is approved.
    • If there are objections raised, the objectors shall describe their comments, and the team will see if the comments can be addressed and agreed. If so, the updated proposals will be reviewed and approved by email or in the following modeling calls.
    • If the objections cannot be addressed:
      • Option 1：a formal vote is conducted. Approval requires 2/3 of the votes approving the contribution, and the vote requires at least 3 companies to attend.
        • Note: the previous response in the poll will be considered as votes for responding companies, unless they change their mind; and participants of the call can also attend the vote
      • Option 2：the chair will try to get rough consensus (reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282), and the Modeling Chair will decide whether the contribution is approved based on the rough consensus
    • The Modeling Chair publishes the results to the mailing list, and record in meeting minutes. 
  • If approved, the DISCUSSION wiki goes to CLEAN. If not approved, there is no transition

3. Wiki Comment Examples & Handling